CCMIN040192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Art unidentified speaker expressed her concern with protecting her neighborhood as a low density, rural area. The plan as presented does not do that. She was in favor of a cul de sac at the end of Martin Avenue with 20,000 sq.ft. lots. She was also in favor of switching park and school sites. She referred to a copy of a letter from the School District agreeing to the relocation. Chris Haynam, 3035 Ferndale Court, urged Council to support the decision of the Planning Commission to deny approval of the plan as presented by the applicant. He strongly opposed the staff recommendation to proceed with partial approval of Villages II and III. He was especially concerned with the high density residential construction in Villages II and III. Mr. Haynam proposed the density to be a minimum of eight units to the acre, thereby reducing 54 units from the total project. David Gonsalves, 2215 Martin Avenue, reiterated the density of the project is too high. He was upset that the developer had not conferred with the residents in the neighborhood as other developers have. Mr. Gonsalves stressed that he is not anti- development, but this project does not blend with the neighborhood. Ms. Mohr inquired about the plans for subdivision in the future because the request for realignment of the road in the Walnut Glen development. Mr. Gonsalves responded that the three properties expect to annex to the city and would probably get four or five new lots of 15-20,000 sq. ft. for a total of seven lots in five acres. If they just wanted the money, they would ask for smaller lots and move out of the neighborhood. Herbert Singleton, 2207 Martin Avenue, agreed with previous speakers. He believes this plan is not in agreement with the Specific Plan and the hundreds of hours of meetings would be wasted. He was in favor of feathering of the lots. Mr. Singleton did not see any reason for the school to be where it is proposed. If the school is necessary, it should be located farther north. The School District has said nothing about safety or noise so apparently they would not be against it. He agreed the school and park site should be reversed. He indicated the Council has seen elaborate and well done artistic work by the applicant of elevations of the homes. It appears that this applicant intends to build out the entire project. Is that binding? Mayor Mercer indicated that is not binding. The plan would be presented in another set of hearings. It would go to the Design R Review Board for design input, then Planning Commission, and finally to Council for final approval. Those are concepts only. Singleton was in favor of allowing the applicant to build but was opposed to approving something like this in a matter of haste. 04/01/92 Page 5